MarloMarlo wrote...
Terror_K wrote...
Actually the original Mass Effect was more of an Action RPG with Shooter elements. ME2 seems more like a Shooter with RPG elements now.
How do the differences between the two games determine how much of an RPG any game is, and whether or not it's an RPG rather than a game that merely has RPG elements? Or, more correctly, the one RPG element that exists. We can start with shooting, since you don't seem to want to talk about role playing, before covering something else.
ME1 made you spend points to upgrade damage and accuracy on specific weapon types whereas you're either fully trained or not for weapon types in ME2. So, basically, less skill points to have to spend before getting the maximum benefit from damage and accuracy (sort of like how you don't have to spend points to get the maximum benefit from crouching or seeing). Of course, stats can still be spent on improving ammo powers, which effectively makes weapon damage and effects (rather than just weapon damage and accuracy) improvable with stat points.
But, ignoring that, sort of like how a Fox News commentator recently claimed that Dubya "had a 100 percent perfect track record in keeping the homeland safe from an Islamic terrorist attack," how does less quanitity of stat points to spend on improving accuracy and damage make ME2 "more like a Shooter with RPG elements" whereas ME1 was "more of an Action RPG with Shooter elements." Is the quantity of stat points without any other considerations supposed to be sufficient to determine that sort of thing? Or are there other considerations, like how much less sophisticated the offensive skills in ME2 must be (to validate your claim) compared to ME1's two percent improvement in tech explosion damage per point spent? Is it quality instead or along with quantity? Or something else completely. You didn't say, so I don't know.
I don't honestly know where the line is drawn, since it's a tough one. I wouldn't, for example call GTA: San Andreas an RPG even though it had character customisation, weapon skills you could level up, driving skills, swimming skills, etc. because it is primarily an action game. It does mix many genres though.
I still feel that Mass Effect 2 is an RPG from what I can tell, but that it's less of one than the original. The fact that shooting is now not influenced by stats in any way is the main problem, since I feel stats should determine one's ability to perform combat in an RPG. Yes, stats do effect the combat in other ways, but essentially we have a TPS system governing one's ability to shoot. I suppose if one were to remove the leveling up and class skills entirely and just replace the system with an upgrade one, then the game would no longer be an RPG and simply be a "Shooter with RPG elements" instead. And to be honest, the class skills aren't that much different than an upgrade system now, it's just that the points you get are determined by one leveling up their character. An RPG needs some kind of character progression system.
Again, I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn. I'll fully admit that. But I also have to wonder where the line would be drawn for those who have little to no problems with the path BioWare has taken with ME2. Where would you guys draw the line and admit that the game has become a shooter more than an RPG? What would have to go to make you as angry and/or dubious as some of us are?
Murmillos wrote...
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Bioware did try all sort of methods to improve ME1's combat and in the end just found that since people expected certain aspects of combat from a TPS, that well, anything less then a classic TPS just did not work?
I mean, bioware is always looking for valuable input, and all the input that was put forth from the complaints of ME1 combat system is put into play for ME2. But all I hear is bioware should have done it differently. Well that's just great. "differently"? just how in "differently"?
Your argument may come across better if you can actually explain the changes you think bioware should have made instead (and yes, it may bare repeating 50 times if need to be every time a new thread shows up) instead of just always show up and go - "Bioware is doing it wrong", when you have no hands on, game time experience.
I can take the positive side of the argument for most of these changes, because as you state, the TPS combat is now the same as every other TPS combat shooter out there. Which I have extensively played and enjoy. So I know what to expect - unless BioWare screws any part of it up.
First of all, let me say that I'm well aware everything I say about ME2 is a worry and concern and not yet a real issue or fault. It doesn't become that until I've played the game.
That aside, I personally would have been happy with a system similar to that of shooting in KotOR, but then I realise that would would put off those wanting a more real-time action approach to the combat. KotOR's system did work, and I can't recall any people who complained about it, but it is more of a turn-based approach, and I understand how many might dislike it. I'm not even sure it would truly work myself, but I'd prefer it to the original ME system and the one that ME2 seems to have.
Beyond that, I'd have gone for something akin to GTA: San Andreas or Fallout 3, where the guns simply get more accurate as you level up your skill, and less shots divert off now and then. That system isn't entirely foolproof either, but it's still better than no system at all. Maybe even a system that's essentially like the ME2 one is now where the weapon would sway a little more, Shepard shot a little slower and reacted a little slower could have worked if these handicaps were gradually reduced.
There's at least three methods. They're not perfect, but they were thought up in just a few minutes. I'm sure with development and tweaking BioWare could have some up with something better in a few months.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
